Italics - Revision history

Beza 1598 at 02:21, 12 March 2016

2016-03-12T02:21:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 12 March 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Words in ''italics'' are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original [[Greek language]] these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in [[English language]], italicized words are sometimes needed. The [[Textus Receptus Version]] follows the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] [[KJV]] as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The [[KJV]] translators studied and mimicked the process of the [[New Testament]] writers who often quoted sections of the [[Old Testament]] [[Hebrew]]. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the [[Greek]] to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the [[Old Testament]] quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the [[Septuagint]]. Many times in [[Theodore Beza\|Beza]]'s parallel [[Latin]] Text of [[1598 AD\|1598]], he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the [[Latin]], such as in [[Matthew 1:6]].		Words in ''italics'' are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original [[Greek language]] these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in [[English language]], italicized words are sometimes needed. The [[Textus Receptus Version]] follows the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] [[KJV]] as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The [[KJV]] translators studied and mimicked the process of the [[New Testament]] writers who often quoted sections of the [[Old Testament]] [[Hebrew]]. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the [[Greek]] to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the [[Old Testament]] quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the [[Septuagint]]. Many times in [[Theodore Beza\|Beza]]'s parallel [[Latin]] Text of [[1598 AD\|1598]], he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the [[Latin]], such as in [[Matthew 1:6]].

			{{Donate}}

Nick at 00:47, 1 January 2014

2014-01-01T00:47:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 1 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Italics in the King James Version==		==Italics in the King James Version==

	The editors of the [[1769 AD\|1769]] Oxford edition Of [[Benjamin ~~Blaney~~]] wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens [[1550 AD\|1550]]. That is why there are more italics in the [[1769 AD\|1769]] than in the [[1611 AD\|1611]] - because they used the [[1550 AD\|1550]] and not the [[1598 AD\|1598]]. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the [[1598 AD\|1598]] of Beza. In [[Matthew 1]] you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example [[Matthew 1:6]]		The editors of the [[1769 AD\|1769]] Oxford edition Of [[Benjamin Blayney]] wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens [[1550 AD\|1550]]. That is why there are more italics in the [[1769 AD\|1769]] than in the [[1611 AD\|1611]] - because they used the [[1550 AD\|1550]] and not the [[1598 AD\|1598]]. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the [[1598 AD\|1598]] of Beza. In [[Matthew 1]] you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example [[Matthew 1:6]]

	And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;		And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;

Nick at 00:43, 1 January 2014

2014-01-01T00:43:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 1 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Italics in the King James Version==		==Italics in the King James Version==

	The editors of the [[1769 AD\|1769]] Oxford edition Of [[Benjamin Blaney]]wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens [[1550 AD\|1550]]. That is why there are more italics in the [[1769 AD\|1769]] than in the [[1611 AD\|1611]] - because they used the [[1550 AD\|1550]] and not the [[1598 AD\|1598]]. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the [[1598 AD\|1598]] of Beza. In [[Matthew 1]] you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example [[Matthew 1:6]]		The editors of the [[1769 AD\|1769]] Oxford edition Of [[Benjamin Blaney]] wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens [[1550 AD\|1550]]. That is why there are more italics in the [[1769 AD\|1769]] than in the [[1611 AD\|1611]] - because they used the [[1550 AD\|1550]] and not the [[1598 AD\|1598]]. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the [[1598 AD\|1598]] of Beza. In [[Matthew 1]] you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example [[Matthew 1:6]]

	And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;		And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;

Nick at 00:43, 1 January 2014

2014-01-01T00:43:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 1 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Italics in the King James Version==		==Italics in the King James Version==

	The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1598. ~~Why~~ they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza~~, who knows~~. ~~If you go through Matt~~ 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example ~~the~~ 1:6		The editors of the [[1769 AD\|1769]] Oxford edition Of [[Benjamin Blaney]]wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens [[1550 AD\|1550]]. That is why there are more italics in the [[1769 AD\|1769]] than in the [[1611 AD\|1611]] - because they used the [[1550 AD\|1550]] and not the [[1598 AD\|1598]]. We are not exactly certain for the reason they didn't follow the [[1598 AD\|1598]] of Beza. In [[Matthew 1]] you will find that there are four extra Italics. For example [[Matthew 1:6]]

	And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;		And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;

	Where in the original 1611 it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..		Where in the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..

	The KJV of 1611 had less italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.		The KJV of [[1611 AD\|1611]] had less italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.

	Words in ''italics'' are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original [[Greek language]] these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in [[English language]], italicized words are sometimes needed. The [[Textus Receptus Version]] follows the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] [[KJV]] as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The [[KJV]] translators studied and mimicked the process of the [[New Testament]] writers who often quoted sections of the [[Old Testament]] [[Hebrew]]. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the [[Greek]] to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the [[Old Testament]] quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the [[Septuagint]]. Many times in [[Theodore Beza\|Beza]]'s parallel [[Latin]] Text of [[1598 AD\|1598]], he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the [[Latin]], such as in [[Matthew 1:6]].		Words in ''italics'' are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original [[Greek language]] these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in [[English language]], italicized words are sometimes needed. The [[Textus Receptus Version]] follows the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] [[KJV]] as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The [[KJV]] translators studied and mimicked the process of the [[New Testament]] writers who often quoted sections of the [[Old Testament]] [[Hebrew]]. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the [[Greek]] to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the [[Old Testament]] quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the [[Septuagint]]. Many times in [[Theodore Beza\|Beza]]'s parallel [[Latin]] Text of [[1598 AD\|1598]], he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the [[Latin]], such as in [[Matthew 1:6]].

Nick: /* Italics in the King James Version */

2014-01-01T00:37:50Z

Italics in the King James Version

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 1 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Italics in the King James Version==		==Italics in the King James Version==

	The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the ~~1595~~. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6		The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1598. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6

	And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;		And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Where in the original 1611 it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..		Where in the original 1611 it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..

	The KJV of 1611 had ~~LESS~~ italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.		The KJV of 1611 had less italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.

			Words in ''italics'' are placed into the text to make it easier for the reader to comprehend the exact meaning of the original text. Whilst in the original [[Greek language]] these words were not needed, to get the exact sense in [[English language]], italicized words are sometimes needed. The [[Textus Receptus Version]] follows the original [[1611 AD\|1611]] [[KJV]] as closely as possible, unless it affects the modern relevance. The [[KJV]] translators studied and mimicked the process of the [[New Testament]] writers who often quoted sections of the [[Old Testament]] [[Hebrew]]. At times there were slight additions or subtractions which were needed in the [[Greek]] to faithfully translate those quotations, although many the [[Old Testament]] quotations are not verbatim. In such places many have fallen into the error of following the [[Septuagint]]. Many times in [[Theodore Beza\|Beza]]'s parallel [[Latin]] Text of [[1598 AD\|1598]], he includes italics to make the Greek clearer in the [[Latin]], such as in [[Matthew 1:6]].

Nick at 02:49, 26 February 2011

2011-02-26T02:49:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:49, 26 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Italics in the King James Version==

	The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6		The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6

Nick: Protected "Italics" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]

2011-01-26T06:12:06Z

Protected "Italics" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:12, 26 January 2011
(No difference)

Nick: New page: The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Th...

2011-01-26T06:12:02Z

New page: The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Th...

New page

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition wanted to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. That is why there are more italics in the 1769 than in the 1611 - because they used the 1550 and not the 1595. Why they didn't follow the 1598 of Beza, who knows. If you go through Matt 1 you will find that there are 4 extra Italics. For example the 1:6

And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;

Where in the original 1611 it has only italics on "that had been" not including "the wife"..

The KJV of 1611 had LESS italics - so the issue strengthens the KJV argument and does not weaken it. As far as italics goes there are very good reasons for their inclusion, and many times they make the verse much more understandable.